Sunday, March 27, 2011

Another One Bites The Dust: After 15 Years, NYT Magazine Quietly Kills "Lives" Back-Page Feature.

After 15 years, the NYT Magazine has quietly killed yet another of its most enduring and popular features -- this time, the back-page "Lives" column.

For the last two weeks -- the second and third issues since the magazine re-launched under new editor Hugo Lindgren -- the backpage feature has been named "Read More." Last week's feature was a 395-word profile of the director of the 1971 movie, "Pink Narcissus," and this week chronicles (in 487 words) the life story of LCD Soundsystem's James Murphy.

The NYT Magazine -- under the leadership of then-editorial director Adam Moss, now editor of New York Magazine -- launched the "Lives" column on January 28, 1996, with an essay by writer Louise Rafkin about her laundry.

There followed more than 500 columns written by the famous (Shana Alexander and Steve Martin contributed in the first year), unknown, and even anonymous -- almost always recounting a small, well-told personal tale. The column grew out of the NYT Magazine's annual "Lives Well Lived" issue that offered short reminiscences of that year's notable deaths.

Lindgren -- who served under Moss at both the NYT Magazine and New York -- has been busy dismantling much of Moss's architecture in recent weeks.

Among Lindgren's moves: he replaced both Randy Cohen (The Ethicist) and Deborah Solomon ("Questions For..."), both popular columnists, and killed Virginia Heffernan's "Medium" column. Perhaps his most controversial decision to date was ending the "On Language" column after 32 years -- most of them written by legendary language expert William Safire.

Lindgren has hired a new Ethicist and "Questions For..." columnist, and launched several new features, among them a regular column by his boss, executive editor Bill Keller, and columns with labels like "You Are Here," "Look," "Riff" and "What They Were Thinking."

The loss of "Lives" will have far-reaching effects among writers, especially those who saw the column as a means to break into the NYT Magazine. In it early years, the column featured the NYT debuts of such future bestselling authors as Elizabeth Gilbert (writing about her childhood home), Mary Roach (on her elderly father) and novelist Colum McCann (on a visit to a Russian cemetery).

In the first issue of Lindgren's re-design, the "Lives" column adapted a piece first published online at Reddit -- liberally editing the language in ways that diminished the writer's original voice, as we noted at the time.

That, as it turned out, would be the column's farewell entry.

UPDATE: Does "Lives" still live? We emailed Lindgren before posting our item and he failed to respond. But a NYTPicker reader wrote to a NYT Magazine editor named John Glassie, and got this reply.

The email suggests that instead of killing "Lives," Lindgren has simply demoted it to occasional status, depending on the supply of 400-word profiles in the bank. Smooth move, Hugo!

30 comments:

'Tis a sad thing. The 'Lives' article would be the first thing I read, followed by 'on language' then Cohen's page. All three would be calm, thoughtful pieces. I notice one effect of the layout/typographical change is that editorial and advertising boundaries are blurry. I wonder if substantive content disagreed with the new 'advertorial' direction.

Hmmm, the 'big girl now' featured cover story seems to have a fat-lipped ax to grind against Miley Cyrus, and former child stars who are maturing not quite as wholesome cinderella's nor as all-out disasters. It'd be interesting to find out how much publicist or industry money was forked out for this cover, but that might discredit the magazine's brand as a whole. The direction the magazine is being pushed towards seems to be embodied in the writer's easy to reject thesis, which is pretty much summed up in the fifth to last paragraph:

"And that is the bind of the tween-girl idol: If you sell your sexuality, your young fan base (and certainly their parents) will turn on you. Yet if you stay clean, you’re dismissed by your peers as too bland. What’s more, no one — neither young women who have gone through it nor girls who will — has patience for the mistakes and pratfalls of your transition to womanhood."

That is to say, handful of victims for targeted sensationalism and a handful of heroes to worship unconditionally, and generation of enough buzz and hype to manufacture public opinion while no one is in a condition to think clearly. Pretty much.

What you say is true: Lindgren has been dismantling the columns established under Adam's Moss's brilliant stewardship of the New York Times Magazine. Why? Old-fashioned revenge. I know for a fact that Lindgren was fired by Moss from New York Magazine, which is why he left to take the #2 position at a lesser magazine ( Business Week). Can someone please go investigate this, please?

Hugo is the best. He's has all the answers and knows exactly what to do and how to do it, and who to front and whom to bench. Hugo is simply the best man suited for the job. Adam Moss was his mentor and taught him how to answer to questions in ways that are so saucy money just wants to pour from the clouds. Great men making pretty pictures.

All these comments show lack of self-restraint. Man is an animal. Hugo must be there to stir up his emotions. His fears of impending dooooomm and kaaakaaboooom of the barbarians (manufactured or real) at the gate!!!! Out there to turn your daughters into baddies!!!

Apparently there are existing allegations that the mag's cover writer pressed Miranda Cosgrove for a kickback for the article + spin! Normally that kind of thing would be labelled as advertisement, but in this exception, if true, it wasn't. She's quite a rabidly aggressive author, but obviously a good autofundraiser!

I grew a bit tired of Deborah Solomon's predictable politics. So I'm glad to have a new byline to decode. I hope it takes a bit longer to figure out its biases.

The Ethicist was always a bit glib for me. The columnist would first choose an impossible question with two opposing right answers and then come up with some glib reason to choose one. After some time, it becomes foolish, like someone trying to jump over the Grand Canyon on a motorbike each week.

On Language I'll miss. And the same goes for Heffernan, although I don't need more than 12 columns a year from her. Maybe she can find a gig that will give her that.

No one wants to compliment the editor for squeezing in and added 92 words to this week's last page? that's more value for your dollar right there! Let's not be so negative!And I guess I had better sign this "Anonymous" since I seem to be the only one using my full name here! Ken...oops, Anonymous

Wonder what the probability is for a high quality submission to get through to the lives back page without an agent peddling through a bribe. With the rare exception, it's only pigeons chirping for the trash can to tip over.

No wonder nearly all the good stuff is getting blogged elsewhere and no one's getting paid to write only paying to be read.

At first wuz jubilantly overjoyed by the report here that 'lives' was scrapped... but feel completely unmanned now that it's back like an avenger in chains... considering the direction 'lives' is taking, it should be renamed 'lowlives' .

I'm so disappointed by all the changes in the Magazine. The design changes make it unpleasant to read, unfocused, and more like a website to be scanned than a magazine to be enjoyed and devoured. The line between advertising and content is indeed blurred, and I find the new titles trite. I'm so disappointed that I may finally cancel my print subscription to the Sunday times after over 20 years. I so looked forward to Sundays, but the new Magazine seems like a poor excuse for print; I'll just surf @longreads instead. If the Internet was causing the decline of print media, the Magazine's redesign will surely hasten it.

who is the nytpicker?

This website devotes itself exclusively to the goings-on inside the New York Times -- the newspaper and the institution itself. Written by a team of journalists who prefer to work in anonymity, The NYTPicker reports on the internal workings of the nation's top newspaper, and comments on its content.

Please email The NYTPicker with any information, gossip, suggestions or thoughts about the New York Times.